Remarkable Nucleotides
by BradfordMike Gene is devoting his time and energies to more important things these days but his blog entries are missed by many of you. Yet his book The Design Matrix and his many internet writings remain available. From time to time I'll reference a particular essay, blog or book discussion in a blog entry placed in a new category called Gene's Gems. The first references DNA-Binding: A Match Made in Heaven from The Design Matrix. Quoting:
Notice that it is more complex than an amino acid, where three complex chemical groups are covalently linked together. And unlike amino acids, nucleotides are not recovered in Miller-Urey type experiments. In fact, Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry and senior research scientist at New York University, notes:
Another way of putting this is that nature rarely selects nucleotides, much less nucleic acids, as products of extracellular chemical reactions.
What is also remarkable about nucleotides is that it is possible to connect the sugar, phosphate group, and nitrogenous base together to form different structures.
In their book, The Mystery of Life’s Origins, Thaxton et al. calculate there are 45 different isomers of the above nucleotide. And when it comes to forming a dinucleotide, shown in the figure below, Thaxton et al. calculate 720 different ways of connecting things together.
So the question is: what basis do we have for believing that primordial earth had conditions favorable to generating nucleotides in configurations that would be favorable to cellular function? Life found on earth is an outcome. It does not specify the sufficiency of a causal chain of primordial chemical reactions.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Bradford,
it's crazy you mentioned this because I was just chatting with a friend about Mike's article The Rational Essence of Proteins and DNA
Which includes A Match Made in Heaven.
It's a great read.
Comment by Doug — July 19, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Messed up the link…
but here it is:
The Rational Essence of Proteins and DNA
Comment by Doug — July 19, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Hi Bradford,
I am using my free weekend to catch up on the status of things like Orch OR and Nanobes.
Here is an abstract from interesting paper…
There have been several attempts to answer the question of whether there is, or has ever been, life on Mars. The boldest attempt was the only ever life detection experiment conducted on another planet: the Viking mission. The mission was a great success, but it failed to provide a clear answer to the question of life on Mars. More than 30 years after the Viking mission our understanding of the history and evolution of Mars has increased vastly to reveal a wetter Martian past and the occurrence of diverse environments that could have supported microbial life similar to that on Earth for extended periods of time. The discovery of Terran extremophilic microorganisms, adapted to environments previously though to be prohibitive for life, has greatly expanded the limits of habitability in our Solar System, and has opened new avenues for the search of life on Mars. Remnants of a possible early biosphere may be found in the Martian meteorite ALH84001. This claim is based on a collection of facts and observations consistent with biogenic origins, but individual links in the collective chain of evidence remain controversial. Recent evidence for contemporary liquid water on Mars and the detection of methane in the Martian atmosphere further enhance the case for life on Mars. We argue that, given the cumulative evidence provided, life has and is likely to exist on Mars, and we have already found evidence of it. However, to obtain a compelling certainty a new mission is needed, one which is devoted to the detection of life on Mars.
As you may recall, the meteorite ALH84001 had Nanobes similar to those recently discovered in sandstones and, possibly, our blood system.
The curious thing about Nanobes is that they appear to contain nucleotides and grow in colonies. However, it is still argued whether or not Nanobes are life.
Considering the shortening time frame due to the determination that the orgin of life predates an RNA World it is becoming less and less likely that OOL occured on "primordial earth".
While you may perfer your presumed hypothesis that life poofed into existance on Earth, the trail of scientific evidence may be leading to a Third Choice.
Shall we follow the evidence wherever it leads?
Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind: "Why are you using your ignorance to deny my providence?"- Job38:1-2
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
TP, someone at TT once pointed to a paper indicating that material exchanges between Mars and the earth, over eons of time, have involved considerable tonnage. I do not understand the mechanics of this but if true it would complicate an effort to ascertain what originated where.
I don't contend that life resulted from magic. That's critic spin. Purposeful input is a more accurate portrayal.
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Bradford:
Here's an answer to that question:
From http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396&ct=1
What do you think, Bradford?
Comment by Raevmo — July 19, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Hi Bradford,
Since this thread appears to a kind of tribute to Mike Gene, I thought you would appreciate me posting a topical exchange he and I had a while back (last August).
First, my comment….
link
Here was Mike Gene's response…
link
This is not about suggesting "magic". It doesn't require magic for an identified designer (God) to provide "purposeful input" into creating life on Earth while he/she/it was creating the universe. That point is moot and is meaningless in the exploration of the natural mechanisms by which such a God's design unfolded.
God or no God, those of us interesting in exploring explanations and following the evidence wherever it leads are interested in assessing the plausibilities of these explanations.
It does not seem plausible that a single, unidentified designer intentionally seeded the earth four billion years ago (six thousand maybe but not four billion).
There is no scientific evidence supporting that contention and defies sensibilities unless one presumes a meddlesome deity.
If life on Earth was intentionally seeded four billion years ago then, at the very least, one should presume multiple and probably conflicting designers.
However, once you accept the possibility of intelligent beings running around you need to take accidental contamination into consideration.
Contamination doesn't need to be direct. It could also be something inherent in space (Nanobes floating in space?).
It is something to think about. Mike Gene did and, presumably, still does.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Unrau and Bartel, RNA-catalyzed nucleotide synthesis, Nature.
The citations are worth a read.
This is rather old stuff. Here's something a bit more recent.
Yuasa, Flory, Basile and Oró, Abiotic synthesis of purines and other heterocyclic compounds by the action of electrical discharges, J. Mol. Biol.
Comment by Zachriel — July 19, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Thank you for your post. I found the citation about carbonaceous meteorites interesting enough to go looking and found this recent paper titled…
Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite
Here is the abstract…
"Carbon-rich meteorites, carbonaceous chondrites, contain many biologically relevant organic molecules and delivered prebiotic material to the young Earth. We present compound-specific carbon isotope data indicating that measured purine and pyrimidine compounds are indigenous components of the Murchison meteorite. Carbon isotope ratios for uracil and xanthine of δ13C=+44.5‰ and +37.7‰, respectively, indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds. These new results demonstrate that organic compounds, which are components of the genetic code in modern biochemistry, were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life's origin."
Since this is a 2008 paper written by scientists from…
a Astrobiology Laboratory, Leiden Institute of Chemistry, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
b Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AZ, UK
c NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 699, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
d Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center, University of Maryland Baltimore, County, Baltimore, MD 21228, USA
e GL, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA
f Planetary and Space Sciences Research Institute, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
g Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 ED, Nijmegen,The Netherlands
…it looks like the extraterrestrial contamination explanation for OOL might be taking hold in scientific circles.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 19, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
July 20th, 2008 at 8:43 am
The distinction between terrestrial and extraterrestrial was not so distinct in those days, and material was continually being exchanged. The Earth's surface water may also have a cometary origin.
Comment by Zachriel — July 20, 2008 @ 8:43 am
July 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
So the question is: what basis do we have for believing that primordial earth had conditions favorable to generating nucleotides in configurations that would be favorable to cellular function?
Raevmo: Here's an answer to that question:
The startling thing about the statement is the comment that:
A basic familiarity with cellular function would have revealed that amino acids have catalytic properties. Most enzymes, after all, are amino acid polymers. A few specified amino acids binding nucleic acid bases or ribose sugars can be part of a catalytic reaction. The more interesting matter is a detailed description of what extra-cellular conditions give rise to amino acids, nitrogenous bases, ribose sugars and phosphate groups and what circumstances allow for a reasonable degree of homeostasis that would not only make the anticipated reactions possible, but would also protect against mitigating side reactions.
My main objection to current ideas is not that extracellular reactions, giving rise to biomolecules, will not happenn. Rather that none of this addreeses a core problem OOL must face i.e. accounting for specified sequencing of polymers needed for biological function. That however will be the subject of a separate blog entry.
Comment by Bradford — July 20, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am
So we have the natural synthesis of macromolecules, such as purines and amino acids. We have RNA-catalysed nucleotide synthesis. We have random nucleotide sequences capable of autocatalysis and evolution. Segregation via lipid membranes and competing metabolic networks seem plausible. There's no complete theory, but there doesn't appear to be any inherent barrier and a lot of supporting evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 8:48 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:31 am
No inherent barrier as in the laws of nature do not make it impossible? That would be a weak thread on which to hang a theory. There is much supporting evidence for the fact that biomolecules chemically react with one another.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:31 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Bradford, you asked this question.
You have been provided a variety of evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 11:37 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:44 am
I was looking for non-trivial evidence. I already knew that nucleotide and amino acid polymers can have catalytic effects. An extracellular process, with a cell in mind as the end result, needs to point to something much more substantial.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:44 am
July 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
It is hardly trivial. The discovery of the catalytic properties of RNA won a Nobel Prize, and it is certainly pertinent evidence.
No one claimed to have a complete theory of abiogenesis.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
And that's old news.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Yes, and the Earth still moves. You've been provided evidence, old and new. The evidence doesn't disappear just because you wave your hands.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Zachriel:
I've been provided with evidence that some biomolecules have catalytic functions and autocatalytic properties. Old news. What I've asked for and gotten hand waving responses to is what is the basis for assuming the end result of a cell from an SRM starting point? That question will not disappear with song and dance responses.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
This was your question:
* All living functions have a chemical basis.
* All organisms evolved from primitive ancestors.
* Organic macromolecules spontaneously assemble in primodial conditions, including the fundamental building blocks of replication and enzymatic activity.
* RNA can catalyze nucleotide synthesis.
* Random sequences can result in enzymatic activity, including autocatalysis.
* Evolution is inherent in imperfect replicators replicating imperfectly.
* There are plausible mechanisms for the origin of segregating membranes and of metabolism.
* There are no known inherent barriers to abiogenesis.
This evidence forms a basis for believing that primordial earth had conditions favorable to generating nucleotides in configurations that would be favorable to cellular function.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Zachriel:
Is this a new law of chemistry? Or does evolution also encompass the degradation of an RNA molecule? The theme of my questions is direction. Where's the directional indicator indicating molecular evolution towards a cell?
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Z,
Racemization?
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
cytosine deamination?
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
hydrolysis?
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
That wasn't in your original question, which I have answered.
Evolutionary processes have no particular direction, but as I already pointed out, there are plausible mechanisms of segregation which would provide competitive benefits. Remember that there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, so it seems you are just ignoring what is known.
Racemization has not been shown to be an inherent barrier and may simply be due to fixation early in the process. I have no idea what you think cytosine deamination has to do with this. Hydrolysis may have a solution in segregating membranes. But regardless, these are not *inherent* barriers (meaning one without any possible resolution).
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
You can make that claim when looking from the perspective of a starting point. But in retrospect we can observe the end products of a causal chain which included cells. So whether evolution had a direction the causal chain of actual events very definitely had one- a specifiable, observable outcome. Incidentally, front loading is directionally oriented as distinguished from a process you have in mind.
What constitues a competitive benefit to a molecule? A self-catalytic reaction is still a chemical reaction as opposed to biological systems involving many interacting parts with identifiable functions.
I'm not ignoring what is known. In fact I'm highlighting some other known physical phenomenon that would not bode well for abiogenesis. I don't want a politicized analysis where only data favorable to a particular paradigm is touted.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Ho hum. Another appeal to luck.
*Yawn* Now it's lucky bubbles.
Zachriel, what *WOULD* you consider to be an inherent barrier to your unknown, unseeable mystery process?
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Yes, and there is a strongly supported Theory of Evolution which explains that pattern in living organisms. We see the end result, but not the extensive branching that led nowhere, so the pattern has the resemblance of direction. In fact, we can directly observe this pattern. It's almost as if the bacteria intend to evolve in response to the particular antibiotic found in their environment, but we can show that the process is random with respect to fitness.
One that makes more of the same molecule (or interacting network).
This is rather old stuff.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
It's not luck to say that a coin will land either heads or tails. Do you understand the Law of Small Numbers and how it applies to fixation?
There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them. — Richard Guy
I am pointing to strong evidence of a link between chemistry and life. Every observation thus far supports the view that life arose from natural processes. There is no evidence of teleology in the origin of life.
Many ID Advocates point to plausible problems with this or that theory of abiogenesis thinking that pointing to a Gap means it is an insurmountable gap (an inherent barrier), as you just did. It would behoove ID Advocates to actually propose and test scientific hypotheses.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Why the telic attachment of competition to molecules? Why even depict chemical reactions in this manner? Biomolecules are no different than other types in that bonding between molecules is predictable based on factors like the identity, proximity and number of different types of molecules present as well as energy requirements. Why assume that a series of reactions, vaguely described, led to a cell? If the amount of reaction products is the benefit indicator, then OOL is in worse shape than I thought. By merely starting with different chemicals one could use a selection scenario to favor any desired outcome. It is not nature driving this theory.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Zachriel,
So what would be an example of an inherent barrier?
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Zachriel:
Plausible problems are not gaps in knowledge. Problems, highlighted with respect to standard approaches, may suggest a flawed approach that is a barrier to our perception of what drove an event. Constraint is a more useful term than barrier. By not recognizing constraints in a theorized physical process, reality is ignored.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Hi Zach,
Maybe not an inherent barrier, but the plausibility drops.
Even in the absense of racemic nucleotides, the formation of one d-nucleotide has 45 different isomers. A dinucleotide there are 720 isomers (The Mystery of Life's Origin & Mike's linked paper). Incorporate both enantiomers and the likelihood gets even more muddy.
Comment by Doug — July 21, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
The salient point being that there is no such thing as an inherent barrier to an imaginary process.
There's no inherent barrier to building a space colony on the sun. It's just that the air conditioner would have to be very reliable. Just a gap in current knowledge, right Zach?
Comment by chunkdz — July 21, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Morowitz in the paper I cited:
According to Bradford this is a "startling comment" because:
The arrogance of ignorance raises its ugly head once again. As if the expert Morowitz doesn't have such basic familiarity, but Bradford does. Unlike Bradford, Morowitz knows that a polymer having catalytic properties doesn't imply that the monomers have this property too.
Now we have seen some evidence that nucleotides are not as unlikely to form extracellularly as Bradford's OP suggests. Do you agree, Bradford? If so, does this increase the plausibility of abiogenesis?
Comment by Raevmo — July 21, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
This from the guy who prefers theories about a designer who can craft the laws of nature by his will.
So if I demand evidence that your designer actually exists I am being unreasonable, yet you can demand what, an ordered list of the millions of individual chemical reactions that lead from abiotic to biotic? Your standards of evidence seem heavily tilted by your biases (of course you will likely simply chant something about rubber and glue).
I need a name for the common practice of trying to thrust your attributes onto your opponent. "Telic attachment" doesn't even make sense, yet you obviously wanted to throw that term at Zachriel. At best you are projecting your inherent biases onto Zachriel, as nothing he said implied anything telic by my reading.
Because there is much evidence to support this notion. Why assume that a series of reactions could not possibly lead to a cell?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 21, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Bradford: I was looking for non-trivial evidence. I already knew that nucleotide and amino acid polymers can have catalytic effects. An extracellular process, with a cell in mind as the end result, needs to point to something much more substantial.
I have not demanded evidence for an entire process. At this point I have repeatedly asked for and received no responses to the question of why changes in an SRM would be selected which favor the development of a cell. If this is a scientific endeavor my question needs to be answered because it is basic to your theory.
Bradford: Why the telic attachment of competition to molecules?
Zachriel was the one who claimed that molecules compete with one another. That sounds telic to me and unlike the chemistry I learned from those who knew it well.
Bradford: Why assume that a series of reactions, vaguely described, led to a cell?
There is not. There are SRMs that replicate to become SRMs for a limited period of time.
Science is about confirming evidence. We don't need to assume anything if it is there.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:06 pm
You have monomers and polymers with catalytic properties. Now answer the question others have avoided. In an extracellular environment why would selection act to preserve products that are essential components of cells?
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
This question assumes that the cell was a desired outcome. We have no reason to think "cell exactly as cells are today" was the selected feature. All we can reason is that whatever the selected attribute was the cell contained more of that attribute than whatever it was competing against.
I know that it sounds telic to you, everything sounds telic to you. I am suggesting this represents a fundamental difference in your thought processes compared to, say, me for whom it doesn't have any telic implications at all.
Well you must just be smarter than all those scientists who won Nobel Prizes discovering all that evidence.
And yet to make progress we must choose some hypothesis to test. So we assume the hypothesis with the most evidence supporting it and try to prove it wrong. When we fail to prove it wrong then it gains acceptance. ID has yet to generate a single hypothesis so they haven't even entered the game yet.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 21, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Because those components are also essential components (or perhaps waste products) of an extracellular replication process?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 21, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Todd, have a beer and watch a ballgame.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Telic attachment? Huh?
In any case, we can observe the process of evolution among sequences of RNA. Check out Bartel's RNA Theme Park.
Who merely assumes such a thing? We hypothesize, then test for the entailed empirical predictions. Then we modify or discard our hypothesis.
In vitro molecular evolution dates from the early 1990's with the evolution of ribozyme ligases by Bartel and Szostak.
What we would expect is that adaptive characteristics would be selected for current function.
Here's an interesting experiment that explores the threshold.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Many of you were shocked when our leader, Mike Gene, decided to leave Telic Thoughts. Well tonight I have more shocking news. I have decided to switch sides. Well, okay I’m just going to pretend that I’m switching. Why? I have always been driven by a curiosity why people think the way they do. In other words, I really want understand the thought process you guys use in forming your arguments; and what better way is there than try to assume your point of view.
You can choose to help me if you wish. I will be honestly trying to represent your point of view. Of course if you don’t, then don’t. But it would seem to me that it would be in your interest to help me represent your arguments as accurately as possible. Remember that famous line from the movie, “Jerry McQuire:” “Help me, help you… Help me, help you…” Besides it might be fun.
Let me start with this:
I think what Zachriel is trying to say here, Bradford, is that if we extrapolate the evolutionary process, which we already know is a completely natural process, backwards in time we find that there are simple organisms that evolve from simpler organism’s and we keep getting simpler and simpler and simpler till we reach a point where we have only organic compounds.
Experiments like Stanley Millers abiogenesis experiment have demonstrated that given the right conditions certain organic molecules like amino acids can be formed rather easily. Furthermore, we know that RNA can catalyze nucleotide synthesis and act and as simple replicaters that could evolve first of all into more complicated protocells which could further evolve into more complicated single cellular and then multi-cellular life forms. Indeed, there is fossil evidence to show that something like this was going on.
Of course, we don’t at the present time understand all the details but there is nothing that rules out possibility of abiogenesis a priori. In fact, to reject it you are making an argument from ignorance. You, on the other hand cannot offer an alternative hypothesis that is scientifically testable. Can you? (smirk, smirk)
So what do you think of that Bradford?
(Zachriel, help me, help you.)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 21, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 am
Hi John,
On the off chance that you might actually want to try to make a convincing argument from the other side, try what I did. Figure out what basics you can defend and extrapolate with logic you believe.
Interconnected quantum effects that makes up a purposeful universe is something I can defend.
Surely, extraterrestrial contamination is something you could defend isn't it? (note the paper on the Murchison meteorite mentioned earlier in the thread).
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 22, 2008 @ 12:06 am
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 am
John A. Designer:
I know the other side believes in the sufficiency of natural forces even when those forces are unidentified but since they make such a point of being so sciency I must insist they live up to their self-appointed reputations for empirical rigor. Simpler to simpler. Simpler to more complex. Any direction it is looked upon presupposes the adaquacy of a self-replicating system, not a molecule. You don't assume the adaquacy of the ToR or QM. It is demonstrated or so we are continually lectured about. Fine. Make no exception so as to sneak naturalism in through the back door (Sorry Lewontin. Hope you don't have that copyrighted.)
Comment by Bradford — July 22, 2008 @ 12:11 am
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 am
I am impressed. That is precisely how one attempts to understand another's argument. Indeed, that is what we mean by hypothesis-testing. You tentatively make the assumption, then deduce specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in the hypothesis.
That's correct. Though not definitive, it is sufficient to form a reasonable hypothesis.
We take the hypothesis and try to devise entailed predictions. In this case, that macromolecules might form under a variety of relevant conditions. More recent experiments have shown that purines are also synthesized, then concentrated through catalysis.
The discovery of ribozymes removed one particular objection, the 'irreducible complexity' of the Central Dogma, that is, always nucleotide to enzyme.
This is also correct. This is not to say that objections are irrelevant. An objection may call into question the plausibility of one or another hypothesis.
To reject abiogenesis without an argument is just obstinance.
To purport a scientific claim of a designer because of the lack of a valid theory of abiogenesis, while offering no scientific evidence of a designer (hypothesis-testing), is an argument from ignorance.
It's not always easy, but do I try to avoid the smirks.
Comment by Zachriel — July 22, 2008 @ 7:52 am
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:56 am
The difference is that there are valid theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. No one claims a complete theory of abiogenesis. However, abiogenesis is a testable hypothesis.
We often call a proposed explanation a theory, but all such theories of abiogenesis are incomplete and largely unverified.
Consider theories of the Moon's origin. Several theories vied for acceptance. Lack of empirical evidence left these theories in limbo for generations. Modern computer simulations provide convincing evidence that the Earth was struck by a planetoid early in its history, a theory which is supported by the unique geological characteristics of the Moon. But at no time did
GodA Designer Did ItComment by Zachriel — July 22, 2008 @ 7:56 am
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Zachriel,
How do you falsify it?
Comment by chunkdz — July 22, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I would revise my statement as Abiogenesis can encompass valid scientific hypotheses. The bare concept is too vague to constitute a valid hypothesis in and of itself.
How would you falsify the general claim that the moon was formed by natural (not artificial) processes? There is significant evidence concerning how masses have interacted and do interact, and various testable hypotheses concerning the natural formation of the Solar System, planets and Moon. To falsify the general claim would require convincing scientific evidence of artifice. Currently, there is no evidence of artifice in the origin of the Moon.
How would you falsify the general claim that the origin of life was due to natural (not artificial) processes? There is significant evidence concerning how life has evolved and does evolve, and various testable hypotheses concerning the origin of life. To falsify the general claim would require convincing scientific evidence of artifice. Currently, there is no evidence of artifice in the origin of life.
Comment by Zachriel — July 22, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Z,
The same could be said for directed panspermia.
Sure there is. It's just that what others call rational design you call a lucky accident. Worldview colors perception.
Comment by chunkdz — July 22, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Panspermia is speculative, and also lacks supporting evidence.
Then state a clear hypothesis and the entailed, specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Comment by Zachriel — July 22, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Speculative – yes, devoid of support – no.
Neither worldview is ready for this step yet. OOL is in the exploration stage.
Comment by chunkdz — July 22, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Please provide whatever scientific evidence you think supports panspermia.
Abiogenetics researchers propose and test hypotheses all the time.
Comment by Zachriel — July 22, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Bacteria that can survive the vacuum of space would lend a small amount of support to the idea, no?
That was a great article. It supports the idea of RNA being very fragile requiring controlled conditions, sophisticated equipment, and an intelligently designed program to incubate, amplify and isolate catalytic properties. Exactly what one would expect to find using a design paradigm. Of course, there is still much about the origin of life that is unknown.
Comment by chunkdz — July 22, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Without a clear statement of your claim, it's difficult to evaluate it. The volume of space is such that the likelihood of bacteria drifting from stellar system to stellar system is very low. Directed panspermia by dispersal is also exceedingly unlikely. However, it does make good science fiction.
The researchers were generating and testing hypotheses based on theories of natural abiogenesis. Is there a reason you are misrepresenting the research?
Comment by Zachriel — July 22, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Hey John,
After some thought, a place to start with thinking as honestly as possible about what a real world design theory might entail would have to be some kind of simulation theory. This seems highly possible and even useful to a human like intelligence designer of some type. There may be a problem to solve or an observation to make concerning the universe at large.
As we all know with more technological advances, simulations have become big business as entertainment and extremely useful to working out scientific problems. Along with that our understanding of AI increases daily which makes simulated human intelligence much closer to reality.
I think a line of questioning could begin under this premise. Of course this would have to come from QM or physics in general as opposed to biology, as the biology contained within the simulation would be part of the simulation… I'm trying to think of some kind of testable idea or line of questioning….
Perhaps starting with the question of the duality of particles and waves. Since scientist are still trying hard to answer the question of the needed observer (whether or not it is indeed needed). Perhaps the simulation is saving processing power by switching modes when not observed by an intelligent agent within the simulation.
Of course there is always the question of what type of observer can cause the wave function collapse? Has this been tested? can a cat or jellyfish cause the collapse? can an true AI cause the collapse(perhaps this will take some time)
Just throwing out what I would rationally have to allow as a real design theory. This removes all sky fairies and the questions of a meddlsome god as any scientist would have to agree it's better to let an experiment run it's course before throwing away or tampering with the test tube.
Of course this also tells us nothing about what the "real world" might be like but it does make our existence contingent on a "human like designer"
Just thought I'd throw that out…
Comment by Kuma — July 22, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Zachriel, earlier you had this exchange with Chunkdz:
So, it’s about probability then, isn’t it? Many of the arguments against abiogenesis center around it’s low probability. Obviously the probability can’t be so low that it is a virtual impossibility. So then, what should we assume about the probability of the OoL? Does it have such a low probability that it’s little more than a lucky accident? Or, does it have a fairly high probability, so that given the right conditions life most likely will emerge?
Can we say anything about life elsewhere in the universe? What about the organic molecules that have been detected in interstellar space, or discovered in meteorites. If it is probable that life originated here on this planet can we use that evidence to extrapolate to other possible planets, especially since we are now beginning to detect new planets around other nearby stars?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 22, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER:
If probability or chance is at the root of abiogenesis then the door is open to a demonstration that abiogenesis is implausible based on chance or probability. If neither is the basis then what is the empirical evidence for causal determinism?
Comment by Bradford — July 22, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 am
JAD says:
No. What's obvious is that you're wrong. The probability of the space shuttle (some of our best technology) assembling itself is zero and the probablility of life (even higher technology) poofing itself out of a chemical brew is also zero.
Comment by nobody — July 23, 2008 @ 1:53 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 am
The probability in question concerns well-known mathematics concerning fixation, so your comment is a non sequitur. Fixation occurs regardless of any theory of abiogenesis, heritable variation, or selection.
But to directly address your comment, no one can calculate the overall probability of abiogenesis without a valid theory. However, probability calculations are often used to test particular hypotheses.
Most researchers now believe the probability is very high that there is other life somewhere in the home galaxy. It is not yet possible to calculate an accurate probability, but knowledge about abiogenesis informs these questions.
Comment by Zachriel — July 23, 2008 @ 7:15 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 am
That would appear to eliminate the *poof* hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — July 23, 2008 @ 7:18 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:16 am
The reader would probably know what I meant from context, but I have edited the statement for clarity.
Comment by Zachriel — July 23, 2008 @ 8:16 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
Zachriel,
Science does not stop investigating just because things look "unlikely" at first glance, or because some guy on a blog feels skeptical. Bacteria that seem adapted for survival in the vacuum of space is one piece of evidence that makes scientists keep investigating.
So much for your claim that there is no supporting evidence.
Nope. I fully realize that this is an important first step for the natural paradigm – proving that this type of catalysis *can* happen, albeit under very tight controls and conditional restraints.
But I also see that this supports the idea of RNA as exceedingly fragile, requiring sophisticated apparatus and a very controlled environment in which to do it's thing. Intelligent design was required to make this happen.
Now, if the researchers had discovered some kind of extracellular RNA catalyzing away in a lipid membrane on a clay substrate in the backcountry of New Zealand, I might say this FULLY and EXCLUSIVELY supports the natural paradigm. As it stands though, the data seems to lend support to both paradigms.
Is that ok with you? Can evidence be viewed from more than one angle, or should there be an academic standard that says all data must be viewed only the way the researchers viewed it?
Comment by chunkdz — July 23, 2008 @ 11:36 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
OT, but made me lol!
In the smirky words of John A. Davison, "I love it so!"
Comment by chunkdz — July 23, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Just because the ancient Egyptian sailors plied the Mediterranean in ships that might have survived being blown across the Atlantic to the Americas, is not evidence that they were or that they affected the native cultures there. One could use this speculation to devise a testable hypothesis, though.
You didn't answer the objection. Nor did you clarify your claim. However, you are more than welcome to investigate whatever it is you're claiming with whatever means you choose. Let us know if you find any scientific evidence to support whatever it is you're claiming.
It takes sophisticated apparatus built in very controlled environments to create artificial satellites. That doesn't mean all satellites are artificial.
The fragility of RNA is an issue for abiogenesis, but there are a number of plausible solutions, such as segregation, but also precursor nucleic acids, such as PNA.
That's a claim, but you haven't provided any scientific evidence to support it.
You still don't seem to understand the scientific method. It means proposing a hypothesis, deducing its entailed implications, then testing for specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. That some bacteria are hardy enough to survive interstellar space might allow reasonable speculation. But because bacteria are hardy for other, mundane reasons, it doesn't distinguish the cases.
That's not a smirk, but sarcasm.
Comment by Zachriel — July 23, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Zachriel,
Actually, it is. Not conclusive evidence, perhaps not even mildly compelling evidence, but it certainly is evidence that lends support to the idea.
If life on earth was seeded from outside of our planet, then bacteria adapted for life in space is supporting evidence for this idea. Not very strong evidence, but evidence all the same.
That's true. Dish Network could have simply formed from cosmic dust.
Yup. But those are speculations. However, we have direct evidence that these techniques can work in the lab when administered by intelligent designers.
Are you saying the scientists weren't intelligent?
So you now admit that it is evidence that lends support to panspermia.
That's true. Certainly no smoking gun. But it's slightly more compelling than if bacteria *couldn't* survive in outer space. After all, there really are relatively few smoking guns in science. It's more about a slow, gradual accumulation of evidence.
Evidence. Just enough for reasonable speculation, as you said.
I couldn't help but notice that you neglected my question. It really is a central one for me, so if you wouldn't mind,
"Is that ok with you? Can evidence be viewed from more than one angle, or should there be an academic standard that says all data must be viewed only the way the researchers viewed it?"
Comment by chunkdz — July 23, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
You never clarified your claim. Is this because you find it easier to avoid having to support your claim? You also never answered the objection I raised above. Is this because you really don't care whether your claims can be supported or not?
It's possible that aliens traveled to the Earth right after it cooled enough for life to exist, then planted little organic nanobots, and a monolith on Europa. Or ethereal spirits add elan vital (undetectable except to the initiati) to the water supply. Or the world was created Last Thursday. I can speculate too.
If you can show that bacteria are adapted for interstellar travel (rather than having characteristics that evolved due to terrestrial conditions that might happen to allow survival during long interstellar voyages), then that might be evidence.
Earth is a satellite that was formed from cosmic dust. Or maybe someone seeded its original formation with a single pebble. There's no evidence of this, but it could have happened that way.
Speculation is not evidence. You still have to form a hypothesis and test it.
There are many ways to look at the world. But only when you can make entailed, specific and distinguishing predictions, can you be said to have scientific evidence. There is nothing wrong with speculation, but for some reason, you confuse this with supporting scientific evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — July 23, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Zachriel,
Panspermia is not my claim, and I never tried to defend it. I merely pointed out some supporting evidence because you incorrectly asserted that no evidence exists.
Now you're making assumptions about where the bacteria came from.
The point was that we know with certainty that intelligent designers can make RNA catalyze nucleotide production. Your attempt to refute this is… well…not good.
Never said it was.
A shell casing on the floor can support the idea that the shooting was accidental, and it can support the idea that the shooting was intentional. It is evidence because it confirms that the shooting occured and offers clues to the answer. Evidence can support more than one worldview, even if it is circumstantial.
By your logic, the shell casing is not even evidence.
Comment by chunkdz — July 23, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
We know bacteria adapt through evolution. But you again missed the point about making a *distinguishing* prediction.
A shell-casing is evidence of a shooting. It does not (in and of itself) support a claim about motive. The term you are looking for is not "support", but "is consistent with".
It has nothing to do with worldviews. It has to do with evidence. Your comments really do demonstrate the vacuity of your position. All you offer is that a designer might, maybe, it could be possible, not inconsistent with the evidence, seeded the Earth's formation with a single pebble.
Comment by Zachriel — July 23, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Zachriel wrote:
But, Creationists like Bradford and Chunkdz often use this or that probability calculation about this or that chemical process to argue that life emerging from non-life by natural processes alone is just too improbable. How are we going to argue against something like that that? Can’t we make a correlation between probability and what we know about a particular chemical process or set of conditions? In other words, doesn’t our increased knowledge and understanding of some natural phenomena sometimes show us that things that were once considered very improbable are indeed, under the right set of conditions, now very probable? Or, you could say more succinctly that increasing scientific knowledge often makes the improbable, probable.
For example, during 19th century, Lord Kelvin, using the known physics of his day, calculated that the age of the sun and the earth and arrived at a much younger age than age estimates that geologists were coming up with. For example he concludes one of his public lectures with this quote:
“It seems, therefore, on the whole most probable that the sun has not illuminated the earth for 100,000,000 years, and almost certain that he has not done so for 500,000,000 years. As for the future, we may say, with equal certainty, that inhabitants of the earth can not continue to enjoy the light and heat essential to their life for many million years longer unless sources now unknown to us are prepared in the great storehouse of creation.”
(note: 100 million yrs was Kelvin’s calculation; 500 million yrs was the emerging scientific consensus)
Kelvin, of course knew nothing about atomic fusion. For him, using the science of his day, the 500,000,000 yr age of the sun was simply too improbable.
You can’t fault Kelvin for sticking with what he knew, but on the other hand he quite honestly concedes that future discoveries could dramatically change his conclusions. Like I said above: “increasing scientific knowledge often makes the improbable, probable.”
You also wrote:
So it is safe to conclude then that life has a fairly high probability of occurring if we have the right conditions?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 23, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 7:46 am
You would have to reference a specific claim, but typically Creationists pose straw man arguments; the most common being that all the components of life had to assemble at one time rather than as an incremental process. As nobody did above.
Yes, we can. To calculate quantitative probabilities requires making highly specified assumptions. But that does appear to eliminate the *poof* hypothesis.
You're presumably using the term "probable" qualitatively, but yes.
And the biologists, too!! Amazing how Darwin could surmise the great age of the Earth from phylogeny, how biologists could make such a prediction that eluded the great physicists of the day.
You have to be careful with your use of the term "probable", which is clearly qualitative in this context. Kelvin *concluded* affirmatively, based on clear assumptions, that the Earth and Sun were relatively young. However, as with all such conclusions, even if his reasoning and calculations were correct, his assumptions might be wrong. And they were. Notice how Kelvin even covered that saying, "unless sources now unknown to us are prepared in the great storehouse of creation.” Kelvin could have *predicted* an unknown source of energy by incorporating the findings of geology and biology—but he didn't. We had to await Curie et al. for a resolution of this conundrum.
Based on current knowledge, most researchers believe life on Earth is not unique, but a result of particular conditions, primarily carbon macromolecules and liquid water over millions of years. But how specific these conditions need be, and how common these conditions are in the galaxy, are still unknown. Due to the large numbers of planets involved (predicted long ago, but only now being confirmed), the chances are very high for other life in the home galaxy. However, again, we can't accurately assign a quantitative value to this probability, so this must be considered tentative without more evidence. That's why scientists so eagerly seek evidence about other planets, especially their chemistry and the possible existence of water.
—
Let me add, JOHN_A_DESIGNER, that the biggest problem in discussions with Creationists and ID Advocates is the equivocation or redefinition of important terminology, such as "science", "information", "evidence", "natural", or "probability". So it is important that you have a clear understanding of these terms, and of how others might themselves understand these terms.
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2008 @ 7:46 am
July 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Zachriel,
Your assertion that evidence is not evidence unless it is the result of a distinguishing prediction is false.
Whatever. At least you admit that it is evidence, even though it was not predicted by the scientific method. We are making progress.
Yes it does. Abiogenesis is entailed to a materialist worldview.
Right. Evidence that is consistent with the designed worldview as well as the materialist worldview.
Well, I sure never said that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
What I actually said was that the study that you linked to demonstrated the ability of intelligent designers to exploit RNA catalysis. This constitutes evidence which lends a small amount of support to the ID worldview, while also supporting the materialist worldview. I'm not sure why this bothers you so much.
Comment by chunkdz — July 24, 2008 @ 10:54 am
July 24th, 2008 at 11:01 am
John A. Designer,
Hi John,
I appreciate what you are trying to do. But in trying to get inside the anti-ID mind, are you finding it necessary to resort to labels and lies?
Comment by chunkdz — July 24, 2008 @ 11:01 am
July 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
All my comments have been in reference to science and scientific evidence, which is a species of evidence. Here's a standard definition of "scientific evidence".
You are confusing a fact or observation with scientific evidence. In forensic science, they propose and test hypotheses, just like any other science. The shell casing is a fact. It's scientific evidence because it *predicts* that a shooting occurred, which then predicts other facts which may or may not be substantiated by additional facts.
Abiogenesis is either scientifically supported or not. It is no more due to a particular worldview than dropping a pencil and watching it drop. But we know, from an array of scientific evidence, that life did not always exist in the cosmos.
Scientific evidence means it supports or contradicts a scientific theory. Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous.
It doesn't bother me at all. I'm just pointing out that you are mangling the scientific method in your effort to support your claims.
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2008 @ 11:50 am
July 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Zachriel,
This is disingenuous. You have used "evidence" on some ocassions, "scientific evidence" on others, and earlier you referred to a "lack of inherent barriers" as "evidence". You can't have it both ways.
Shell casings don't *predict* anything. They are evidence that either supports a line of inquiry or does not support a line of inquiry. In my example, the casing is evidence that supports two lines of inquiry.
Similarly, RNA catalysis induced by intelligent designers is evidence that supports two lines of inquiry.
This does not refute my statement.
And yet, there is mounting evidence that lends support to the ID perspective.
If you think the scientific method was mangled, you'll have to take it up with Unrau and Bartel. I'm just some guy who read their Nature article and noticed that their research yielded evidence which lends some small amount of support to the intelligent design paradigm.
Comment by chunkdz — July 24, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I have made it very clear throughout the thread that I am arguing within the paradigm of science, including citing scientific journals and discussing scientific theories. If you thought otherwise, you were mistaken, and you may now kindly reread my comments in the proper context.
Of course it does. Abiogenesis is simply not a necessary consequence of the materialist worldview. A materialist might think the universe and life are eternal. However, it's the science which indicates otherwise, just as the science indicates that the pencil will fall down rather than up.
Wow! Why would I take it up with Unrau and Bartel? Basing their paper on the RNA World Hypothesis, they show that nucleotide synthesis and other metabolic pathways can be mediated by ribozymes. Nothing mangled there. Nor is there any suggestion of Intelligent Design, and I'm sure they would strongly disagree with your claim.
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Chunkdz wrote:
I’m sorry if I offended you. I should have no doubt warned people that when I do these kind of things I do tend to get into character. Labeling? Well, okay. But lying? If I had lied I am sure that my mentor Zachriel would have pointed that out to me.
Have you ever read the Screwtape Letters? The longer that this continues the more I begin feel like I’m turning into Wormwood. Is Zachriel my Uncle, Screwtape? (gasp!) That means that I’m turning into a demon… But, I’m still having fun and as everyone know that’s the most important thing in life… Oh no, that is something that Wormwood would have said.
Zachriel wrote that…
I am not quite sure exactly what you mean by an “incremental process” I understand how biological evolution can be incremental but we are talking about the origin of life here, in other words, life coming from non-life. Are you saying that pre-biotic or abiotic chemistry is capable of some kind of natural selection? Or, descent with modification? If that is what you meant, please elaborate. I’m intrigued.
Since you ended your post with a discussion about terminology and the way we use words, maybe you could explain to me what you mean by the word “believe” here? Obviously in science (as well as other things) absolute certainty, at least in most cases, is not really attainable. How does scientific belief differ from, say, religious belief? Can we take “scientific belief” too far? In my opinion belief is something we should use as little as possible.
Of course maybe you didn’t mean belief in the way that I’m thinking. Maybe this is another case of equivocation.
Zachriel to Chunkdz:
Excellent point.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 24, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 8:18 am
I could not imagine such a thing. However, if you had misspoken or been mistaken, I would have been happy to point it out to you. I hope you would offer me the same consideration.
Zachriel may be an imperfect angel, but not a fallen one.
According to proposed abiogenetic theory, the distinction between life and non-life may not be distinct. For instance, replicating molecules would not necessarily be considered living organisms, but they could still evolve through selection. Replication itself may be awkward, inaccurate or incomplete. Consequently, the beginnings of life and evolutionary processes may be halting or chaotic.
No one knows exactly what happened, of course, but we assume that at some point reproduction begins. This might mean molecular replication, or division of vesicles, or apreading networks of catalytic interactions. Most likely, many processes were occurring in concert; genes, vesicles, metabolism.
Replicating vesicles as models of primitive cell growth and division, Hanczyc and Jack W Szostak.
The most important point to make is that we propose a model, construct a valid hypothesis to test that model, then *test it*.
believe, to hold as an opinion; in this case, an informed scientific opinion.
Absolutely correct. Even the Theory of Gravity has undergone and is undergoing constant revision in the light of new evidence. While abiogenesis still lacks a complete theory.
Scientific determinations are those made through the scientific method; hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat. Religious belief and why people hold them vary widely. Some will say their belief is based on personal revelation. Others will say it is based on the apparent orderliness of the universe. Many find spiritual solace in sacred texts. Still others will say it is strictly a matter of faith.
Of course. Someone might put too much confidence in tentative scientific findings. Or apply science inappropriately to areas outside its purview.
Belief, as I defined it above, merely means to hold an opinion. In science, all conclusions are considered tentative.
Words often have more than one meaning. This only results in equivocation if someone slips unnoticed between one meaning and another. The problem can be easily avoided by defining one's terms, being aware of that others might use the words in different ways, and by a willingness to explain any areas of confusion.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 8:18 am
July 25th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Zach:
As humorous as I've been finding your hilarious back and forth with John and fmm, I've been completely unable to detect any actual tentativeness in your staunch faith in accidental poof-dom per the subject of abiogenesis. It does appear to be an article of faith entailed more by your metaphysics than your scientific commitment to methodology.
Because the fact of the matter is that scientific methology demonstrated very clearly nearly a century and a half ago that life forms do not spring forth from inert matter. Even if that inert matter has ALL the pieces-parts necessary for full-blown life (like, say, a newly-dead body). Yet you still insist it must have done so back when there was nothing but soot mixed with water.
We NEVER see life forms – or even functional viruses – spontaneously springing forth from dirty water. Or mineral clays. Or hot pea soup. Or old underwear. We never see it because it doesn't happen. Yet every possible scenario on the effect end of whatever conditions held at first appearance of life exists somewhere on, in, over or under our planet – its geology and its seas. This seems to be a significant 'scientific' strike against the assumption that life accidentally assembled from dirty water here on planet earth.
Now, there are quite a few old astronauts who insist the 'watchers' they encountered came from Titan, but our probes have demonstrated no advanced civilization there. That we've been told about, anyway. Sounds too much like a Vonnegut novelette. [Daily Mail, Discovery]
But many whose assumptions about first life are less faith-based than yours long ago accepted the greater likelihood that life was seeded on this planet the moment it could survive here long enough to reproduce. That not only gets around the scientific constraints on magic poof-dom and strong falsifying evidence from Louis Pasteur, but better explains the apparent front-loaded complexity (and evolvability) of what we highly suspect to have been the forms of the first life on earth.
But whether or not those old men are engaging in deliberate collective lies about what they encountered in their extraterrestrial journeys, at least their tales don't involve patently ignoring evidence against magic poof-dom while at the same time pretending that magic poof-dom is self-evident. If earth life was seeded, it was probably designed. And that would look to explain more about what we see in life than magic poof-dom would.
Perhaps the "Little Green Men" (or whatevers, all described as 'humanoid') were just curious. Wanted to see if evolution on this planet would eventually produce something 'humanoid' if they replayed the tape here. And sure enough, it did. Maybe they were also wondering where THEY came from originally, and found that accidental magic poof-dom was so unlikely as to be dismissible. Who knows?
Since ample falsification of the idea that life springs forth from inert matter via accidental magic poofs has long been present in science, what – exactly – is your justification for still insisting on accidental magic poof-dom? Is it just personal aversion to other hypotheses, or is it an investment of faith in a metaphysical philosophy that must reject design out of hand and against all evidence to the contrary?
Inquiring minds want to know… §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2008 @ 10:33 am
July 25th, 2008 at 10:47 am
The *poof* hypothesis has already been rejected by the vast majority of scientists (as I mentioned above).
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 10:47 am
July 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Zachriel,
Then you should have no problem telling me what specific and distinguishing prediction is made by your "evidence" that "there are no inherent barriers to abiogenesis." Apparently, when arguing on behalf of your own worldview it's ok to call an argument from ignorance "evidence".
Not only unscientific, but inconsistent just within this single thread. Is that the context you were seeking to establish?
Which is why it's unnecessary for you to appeal to fringe worldviews. The standard reducto-scientific materialism suffices for a discussion of abiogenesis.
Right! They set out to find RNA synthesizing nucleotides, and apparently they succeeded! I'm guessing that they didn't find RNA synthesizing nucleotides in a lipid bubble in a pool of silty goo near a hydrothermal vent. The reason I guess this is that they chose to intelligently design an apparatus and procedure that allowed for incubation, amplification, and isolation of key RNA's in a highly controlled environment. It is a spectacular demonstration of how intelligent design can accomplish what nature refuses to do.
How could they? They are obviously intelligent, and they designed the experiment. Doesn't that make them intelligent designers?
Comment by chunkdz — July 25, 2008 @ 10:57 am
July 25th, 2008 at 11:10 am
JAD,
If Zachriel doesn't offend me, then you certainly don't! I can't say I'm *surprised* that getting into character required labeling and lying. I'm just surprised that it happened so soon. You'll be calling us "tards" by the weekend at the rate you're going.
By the way, the lie was:
I don't recall ever using probability calculations to argue against abiogenesis. I pretty much just go by what I see. And what I see is that sterile remains sterile with prejudice, and every attempt at abiogenesis requires an ever increasing amount of intelligent design to accomplish. It's just a trend I'm following.
Comment by chunkdz — July 25, 2008 @ 11:10 am
July 25th, 2008 at 11:32 am
First, learn to quote. I said,
Nor did I say that it constituted "evidence", but a "basis". By itself, this wouldn't be particularly meaningful, but it answers the common objection on this forum that such barriers exist. There is significant positive, scientific evidence for abiogenesis, so you may disregard the comment about inherent barriers.
One doesn't have to be a Materialist to understand and appreciate science and its findings.
Yes, they made a prediction, then dedicated their time and professional reputation to verifying that prediction. It didn't have to turn out that way. It could have been a falsification, or worse, no resolution at all.
Could you have done that? Is it entailed in your alternative theory? If you have scientific priority, then what journal was th experiment published in? What methods were used?
No, I believe hydrothermal vents are already occupied by highly derived organisms from all three domains of life, Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya.
When Galileo rolled weights down an incline, it led to the Theory of Intelligent Falling.
The experiment shows exactly what the researchers predicted based on the RNA World Hypothesis, and removes one more problem from forming a complete theory of abiogenesis. But there is, as yet, no such theory. Maybe it was alien seeding, or a Divine Miracle. But there is no scientific evidence to support those claims.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 11:32 am
July 25th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Abiogenesis was said to have been an incremental process. Where is the evidence describing what the gradual process was? What evidence identifies specific causes and explains how their effects account for incrementalism?
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2008 @ 11:41 am
July 25th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Zachriel:
The scientific evidence would have to entail evidence of aliens or a deity. But if there can be evidence for incrementalism, there can also be evidence of the opposite. Irreducible complexity is really an argument against incrementalism or at least an incremental process devoid of a directing influence. There is no incremental process for abiogenesis. You can place a unicellular organism in a pond and come back a short time later to find trillions of offspring. No special conditions are even required. Common earthly environments will do. You can't do the same with a self-replicating molecule. Even in ideal lab conditions the process eventually exhausts itself.
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2008 @ 11:50 am
July 25th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Zach:
Even an accidental build-up of unlikely precursors amounts to a magic poof in the end, Zach. You know, that moment where inert matter that doesn't qualify as 'alive' suddenly becomes a living organism complete with all the necessary ingredients to survive and reproduce in an unfriendly environment (that had to be awful in order to generate the magic components that magically poofed into life). In contradiction to all the evidence that this sort of thing NEVER happens. I don't believe in magic.
You simply assume that it must have happened anyway, because your metaphysics demands it.
Zach to chunkdz:
No, there is not "significant positive, scientific evidence" for abiogenesis. There is significant scientific evidence that it doesn't happen. That's just a plain fact, so you resort to all sorts of fanciful imaginings and inconclusive, intelligently designed experiments that don't actually establish what you want them to establish. "It must be true," therefore it must be true despite evidence against it. There MUST have been some weird, magical accident or series of accidents under special, unknown conditions that enabled it to happen. That's your story and you're sticking to it, because you've no choice in order to bolster your metaphysics and still claim it's 'science'.
Now, that reasonable inference you cite works as well for a design scenario. Yet you don't allow that to even enter your mind. Looks to me like the design inference is better supported by science, but you'll of course insist not so. You've invested your faith, no amount of falsification will convince you otherwise. We all know how that works, it's just kind of humorous that you keep insisting you're doing science instead of supporting your faith. Oh, well.
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Argument from ignorance.
Actually you did. Why lie about this? So pointless.
No need to get snippy. I'm just a guy reading the article.
Smirky.
But Galileo didn't need an apparatus to see weights fall. They fall quite naturally and readily.
Conversely, Unrau and Bartel could not witness their synthesis in the wild. They *had* to intelligently design a controlled mechanical and chemical environment in order to generate a specific biological process.
And added a couple more problems. Namely, what natural pre-biotic conditions would be necessary to mimic Unrau and Bartel's laboratory?
And yet, Intelligent Design often seems to be the methodology of first choice when trying to recreate various aspects of abiogenesis. Don't you find this intriguing?!
Comment by chunkdz — July 25, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
As I said, by itself it wouldn't be particularly meaningful, so you may disregard the comment.
Considering you just misquoted me, you might want to be more careful in your accusations. You could just assume there was an area of ambiguity or poorly chosen language and ask for clarification (which I have already offered).
Unrau and Bartel made an important contribution by proposing and testing a prediction entailed in the RNA World Hypothesis, but your response has been to wave your hands, "They set out to find RNA synthesizing nucleotides, and apparently they succeeded!"
Falling isn't as simple as you seem to think. That's why Galileo devised experiments to study minimal aspects of the phenomena.
That is the only argument you have raised that has merit. Yes, this is an important consideration, and one that is under significant scrutiny. However, Intelligent Design has never added anything of scientific merit to the research.
That's a serious bit of equivocation. Intelligent Design is the claim that living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Much evidence has already been provided, Bradford, from the origin of purines and amino acids, the catalytic properties of RNA, the growth and division of vesicles, etc. However, no one has a valid step-by-step, at this time.
Yes.
But, in fact, irreducible structures can evolve incrementally, such as by subtraction or cooption. The discovery of catalytic RNA eliminated one so-called irreducible structure.
Common to you, perhaps. But pools of liquid water full of rich organic compounds and warm sunlight are a very rare commodity in the universe as a whole.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I already addressed this issue. Most theories of abiogenesis posit that the dividing line between living and non-living matter is indistinct and chaotic.
When scientists propose hypotheses that are entailed in a theory, then confirm them through testing, especially when those predictions concern unexpected properties of matter, it lends support to the theory. Nothing is conclusive thus far.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Zach:
Of course they do. But that certainly doesn't make it so. Why don't you just point to some "semi-living matter" for us, so we'll all know what being semi-alive (or semi-dead) looks like? Does it look like fully formed amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids and structural, encoded DNA? I can find fully formed organic molecules particular TO life in abundant amounts in a thimbleful of dirt from my garden (along with actual life forms by the thousands). All of it comes from living organisms, even if they're long dead now. New life forms NEVER spring into existence from all that well-organized organic matter even after a good rain. The living critters do reproduce, though.
I'm not buying the idea that there's any such thing as "semi-living matter," but you obviously do. When you die, will your material pieces-parts be "semi-living matter?" Is that steak you had for dinner made of "semi-living matter?" How about your body's solid waste products? Are you flushing "semi-living matter?"
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Zach, given my obvious high level of skepticism about the existence of pre-biotic (or even post-biotic) "semi-living matter," I should probably go ahead and make my point. I have never seen any semi-living matter, though I have seen decaying once-living matter (and the microbes that serve to decay it).
You really need to consider both ends of the spectrum in order to justify the fuzz you want to introduce in between not-living and living. Get some earthworms and grind them in the pogey-matic to mush. Mix well with clay particles and dirty water, sterilize out the living microbes. Cover tightly and watch to see if any life forms spontaneously arise, or build themselves up out of semi-living matter. All those fully formed organic molecules and biochemical ingredients that used to be worms.
You can zap the container with lightning, remove all the oxygen from the air, put it under megatons of pressure, boil it, smack it around, cast voodoo spells, whatever you like. I predict you won't be seeing any spontaneously generated life forms. By rights of your firmly held belief, you should see spontaneously generated life forms (or biochemically active and reproducing semi-alive life forms).
Simple predictions from basic hypotheses, easily tested. Pasteur managed experiments quite like this a century and a half ago, should be a breeze for you. Or you could just go ahead and say that fully-formed organic pieces-parts that were once alive qualify as semi-living matter as much as biologically sterile sooty mud ever did. Surely actual fully-formed organic pieces-parts could do it easier!
And by the way, can you offer a definition of the term "living matter?" Since ours gets replaced atom by atom, molecule by molecule all the time (from 'non-living' matter uptaken), what makes that matter 'alive'? The biological construct to which they become attached? Do they change into something else when the biological construct dies, or are they still 'carbon' or 'hydrogen' or 'magnesium' or 'phosphorus' or 'iron'? How is living iron any different from non-living iron?
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Z,
How is my enthusiasm for Unrau and Bartel "hand-waving?"
Falling happens. Abiogenesis doesn't.
And yet, without intelligent design this discovery never would have been made, the experiment would not have succeeded, and the article would never have been written.
Nope. ID is the idea that some features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected process.
What have we learned from Unrau and Bartel? That nucleotide synthesis catalyzed from RNA is best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.
Why? Because that's exactly what just happened.
Comment by chunkdz — July 25, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
We observe the evolution of some structures by subtraction and impute cooption to other structures based on molecular evidence. There are countless biological structures and probably most would qualify as IC. This is not the pencil falling to the ground inferring gravity but a much more complex study with many unanswered questions not readily yielding to cooption. I don't think of either catalytic RNA or nucleotides as irreducibly complex themselves. A genome composed of many nucleotides would be or even simply a single gene.
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Joy, we have already discussed how the *poof* hypothesis is no longer considered a viable theory.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I apologize for misreading your intent. So we agree that Unrau and Bartel confirmed a specific prediction entailed in the RNA World Hypothesis.
You're missing the point. A common experimental method is to examine only one aspect of a complicated problem. We call this process "designing an experiment". Just because we use design in the experiment doesn't mean the object of our study is the result of Intelligent Design.
For instance, we might recreate the formation of the Earth-Moon system using a computer simulation (Canup 2003, video). That doesn't imply that the Earth-Moon system is intelligently designed. In the case of abiogenesis, we can't recreate oceans of interacting macromolecules, but we can recreate aspects of various steps in order to test different hypotheses.
That's a gross misstatement of the scientific method and what Unrau and Bartel did. They proposed a hypothesis entailed in the RNA World Hypothesis. The confirmation strengthens the Hypothesis, but is not definitive. Successful predictions lend strength to a theory.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Zach:
Um… no, we haven't. You have simply asserted so.
Then you asserted that 'science' now believes there's something called "living matter," made up of (presumably) semi-living matter, which becomes living in incremental, fully Darwinian evolutionary steps. No 'poof' involved, because there's no real difference between 'alive' and 'not-alive'. I actually agree with that, since I don't believe life is a quality of matter. Thus I don't believe in semi-alive matter either.
I've asked you for some firm definitions for your terms and concepts. You demand definitions constantly whenever you get uncomfortable with what one of us skeptics has to say, so I simply expect you to provide your own definitions per your arguments here.
Why the distraction and evasion?
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Sorry. I thought we were in agreement that the *poof* hypothesis is not a viable scientific theory. I certainly don't. Do you disagree?
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I went back and looked for questions in your previous comments. Most were not serious questions, but perhaps this is what you are referring to:
"Living matter" is matter comprising living organisms. However, there are gray zones, like with many such categorizations. A puppy is alive, and hair is a part of a puppy, but is hair alive? What about a person whose heart has stopped? A century ago, the person would have been considered dead. Today, it means Code Blue—life is in danger. What about the cells in the recently deceased? What about human kidney cells cultured in a lab? What about an unfertilized egg? What about DNA? There is certainly a lot of in-between, and that's just in the extant world. We *know* that there is in-between. In the archaic world of abiogenesis, we posit a lot of ambiguity.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Zach:
But as I mentioned, the matter comprising living organisms comes and goes with some regularity throughout the timespan of development, existence, and decay. It's just matter. It's not 'alive'.
What *is* 'alive' is the organism, or in the case of functional, reproducing cells, the cell is 'alive'. IOW, the system is 'alive', if by 'alive' we mean biochemically active, functional metabolism serving processes with telic value to the continued 'alive-ness' of the system. The individual atoms and molecules are just atoms and molecules. Matter. They're the same matter in your stomach as a meal as they are in that once-living organism you ate. Some of that matter will get incorporated to replace atoms and molecules in your own cells (recycling), but it will be no more 'alive' in a cell of your kidney than it was in a cell in the butt-muscle of some now-dead cow.
Until the system of which various atoms and molecules belongs is alive, there is no life. There are just atoms, molecules and chemical reactions. Pouring vinegar into a cup with baking soda in it produces quite an active chemical reaction, but that foam isn't alive. So you can't fall back on active chemistry to determine the line between life and non-life either.
I think you wish to confuse the issue altogether because the abiogenesis hypothesis is so completely weak. I can remember when Darwin-Defenders claimed origin speculations weren't pertinent to evolution, that the two subjects don't mix. Now you want to mix them, but your fuzz-zone doesn't look to apply. You only wish it to.
Can you now see that your faith in the hypothesis overrides any actual evidence – or even firm definitions of terms – that science has yet provided? Perhaps exceeds any such evidence or definitions possible? I can see it. It's okay to admit your metaphysics shape your view. That's true of everyone, including scientists.
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Zach,
I've said as much 3 or 4 times in this thread. You're just not listening.
In the case of Unrau and Bartel, intelligent design was required to make the synthesis occur. I imagine in the future one could conceivably design an experiment that allowed this synthesis to occur in a plausible pre-biotic environment in a natural way, but that's another experiment altogether.
I'll say it again. Their research supports abiogenesis. It also is a demonstration of the awesome power of intelligent design to do what nature doesn't do. Doesn't this fascinate you even a little?
Comment by chunkdz — July 25, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
"Living matter" is a common term to refer to the matter which comprises living organisms. Britannica refers to the study of the "chemical composition of living matter" as an area within biochemistry. But if you find the term inelegant or confusing, we can abandon it.
Life is a process that involves matter and energy.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Hi Joy, how's the tummy?
Comment by chunkdz — July 25, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
The experiment is devised specifically to address issues concerning the pre-biotic environment, the very low concentration of nucleotides generated in Miller-Urey type experiments. These are each steps in the posited chain of events.
It does nothing to support the Intelligent Design Hypothesis. The fact that scientists can intelligently design machines to generate electric sparks doesn't offer one iota of support to the Angry Sky God Hypothesis.
Yes, it's fascinating research.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Zachriel,
Once again you choose a poor analogy. Electric sparks happen. Abiogenesis does not happen.
Comment by chunkdz — July 25, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Ah, so we are back to the claim that anything which can happen should always happen for ever more. The Earth only has one moon, why if moons could form naturally the Earth should be forming new moons all the time, therefore obviously God created the moon.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 25, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Zach:
So is every other phenomenon in the universe. My toaster, however, is not alive. Neither is the forest fire we had last spring. Nor your car, or even your heat pump. You might consider an on-line reactor core to be alive, but I don't. Lots of matter and energy and active stuff going on!
But I do understand your retreat to meaningless uber-definitions that avoid the actual question of what, exactly, life is. And what, exactly, biology studies. If biologists don't know, then perhaps it's up to someone outside the close-knit community to define it for them. Since they can't define it for themselves and all.
I thought Erwin Shrodinger did a fair job back in 1944. But he was just a physicist. Richard Dawkins tells me it's all about "selfish" molecules running entire systems with a 'mind' to do the impossible – preserve their own existence. Something that the origin end of biological evolution renders moot.
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Todd B.:
Total non sequitur. You guys have totally run out of reasonable arguments, haven't you?
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I provided several analogies, including one concerning investigation of a historical event. Designing an experiment to test theories of the Moon's formation (e.g. computer simulations, geological surveys) doesn't imply that the Moon was intelligently designed. You are equivocating.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
It was not meant as a full description, but a starting point. Not all phenomena are processes. A process is "a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result." Life is typically characterized by an organic metabolism leading to reproduction. However, the exact boundaries between living and non-living can be chaotic, as mentioned above.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Non sequitur, how so? Seems like a perfect analogy to me. Why should we expect the conditions required for abiogenesis to sill be present? Its obvious that the conditions required for planetary formation no longer exist, shouldn't it be equally obvious that the conditions required for abiogenesis no longer exist? Just because the conditions no longer exist is obviously not reason to conclude they never existed. If the analogy is invalid lets here why.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 25, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Zachriel wrote:
You mean you want me to accept you as someone masquerading as an angel of light? (all be it a tarnished one.)
Bardford, throughout this thread my mentor, the angel of light (albeit a tarnished one) known as Zachriel, has consistently said that there is presently no theory of abiogenesis. There are hypotheses which are very tentative but NO theory. What kind of hypotheses can we develop using the so called theory of intelligent design? If your honest you'll admit, ID can’t really offer a natural explanation how life got started. If it can, then please state your hypothesis. However, empirical science potentially can. We’re not arguing that we are anywhere close to a well established theory only that OoL is an area that can be, and should be, in our opinion, explored empirically by science.
Sure, there are a lot of loose ends, puzzles and mysteries but it is the nature of science explore these kinds of things. Who knows it may be decades or centuries before we are able to explain how life began. It may be never.
Even Behe has said that it is logically possible that so called IC structure can evolve by natural processes. It is simply that he sees that, based on what we presently know as highly unlikely.
By the way Bradford, I can see beneath that cheap tuxedo of yours. Underneath it all you are nothing but a Poofist (Sorry, just trying to keep the jokes– okay bad jokes–spread out evenly here.)
Chunkdz, are you able to prove a negative? Abiogenesis does not happen? It cannot happen? It has never happened? Are you able to prove that? It sounds like you are making an a priori assumption here. You are starting with the premise you wish to prove. That is clearly circular reasoning. Zachriel on the other hand, has consistently argued that the OoL by natural causes alone is a logically possible one. He has never claimed that it has been proven, but only the kind of thing that scientists are naturally curious about. Furthermore, the possibility that there is a natural explanation for the OoL is supported by new empirical knowledge as scientists continue to explore this very complex but interesting puzzle.
Joy wrote:
So, then it’s not something that science should look into. Weak hypotheses never gain strength? I can think of some examples where they have.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 25, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Todd:
The difference being it should be possible to duplicate geologic earthly conditions in a lab. Planetary conditions, relevant to planet/moon formations, cannot be duplicated except perhaps by computer simulation.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2008 @ 1:31 am
July 26th, 2008 at 1:46 am
John A. Designer:
When faced with this type of humor I turn to my wife in desperation. She says that beneath my tuxedo lies a set of tight buns. Buns and primeval soup for breakfast. Makes me want to poof.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2008 @ 1:46 am
July 26th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Not only "can be" and "should be", but "has been" and "is being" scientifically investigated. Many well-formed hypotheses have already been tested and confirmed.
I'm not sure that is chunkdz's point. His claim is that every bit of scientific evidence is consistent with natural abiogenesis and with an artificial origin of life. Though scientists have tested the former, there is no positive evidence of the latter, and for whatever reason, chunkdz does not consider providing evidence of artifice to be important to maintaining the claim.
Perhaps angels push planets on celestial spheres to make it look just like gravity. — Every bit of scientific evidence is consistent with this claim. But without scientific evidence of the work of angels (e.g. music of the spheres), the claim remains scientifically vacuous.
—
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter. Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one epoch at a time.http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 8:29 am
July 26th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Let chunkdz speak but a major theme of his comments in my view is that there is an unacceptable level of intelligent input in OOL experiments which make outcomes a product of design as well as natural forces.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2008 @ 9:47 am
July 26th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Todd,
When we observe a phenomenon happening through intelligent causation, but the same phenomenon shows no inclination of occuring naturally, that does not mean that it couldn't happen naturally. It means simply that our best explanation for the phenomenon is intelligent causation, because intelligent causation has resulted in the only directly observed instance of said phenomenon. This could conceivably change as abiogenesis research proceeds, but at this moment the trend seems to be that abiogenesis research requires more and more intelligent designing the deeper it gets.
It's an observation, not a conclusion. I am looking at this empirically, not dogmatically.
Comment by chunkdz — July 26, 2008 @ 11:20 am
July 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Zach:
Whoa. Process as teleology? Oddly enough, we here at TT have been saying life – thus evolution – is a teleological process for years, while critics like you have been insisting not so with ever more shrill hysteria. It's nice to see a critic finally admit the entirely evident small-t truth for a change.
Oh, life could be defined in quite a few ways. Since reproduction isn't an absolute requirement (life forms that never reproduce still count as life forms) and death *is* an absolute requirement, life could be simply described as "…a bitch, then you die."
More realistically, there are biophysical distinctions between life and not-life, and I am highly skeptical of your assertion that 'semi-life' exists at all. I understand that your average field biologist (or professor) and computer geek (genomics/proteomics) have no great knowledge of or fondness for physics. But physics will play a much greater role in the defining of terms than you'd be comfortable with (tough titty). Life is not the sole concern of finch beak cataloguers.
But first they'll have to finish their firm definition of time, since life is a short-term eddy in the fabric of that parameter. When they get to that point, they should have a basic handle on the fifth element too – consciousness. Stapp predicts 200 years for a working definition. I'd like to think a mere hundred.
Regardless, it's way premature for you to pretend that your a priori metaphysically-based conclusion is actual 'science' sans any of the necessary physics of beginnings and endings. The smartest thing to say about OoL at this point is what has been said all along to this point – "…we don't know."
THEN you can say "…but I believe…"
Comment by Joy — July 26, 2008 @ 11:29 am
July 26th, 2008 at 11:38 am
John A.D.:
I have no problem with science 'looking into' the hypothesis that life magically poofed into existence from raw, inert matter that just happened to form itself into complex nucleotides coding and translating information for production of proteins and molecular machines and eventually becoming complex enough to magically poof a consciousness into existence so there can be science to 'look into' these sort of questions nobody but humans bother to ask.
I just find Zach's wishy-washy fuzz-zone to be far too non-specific to be of any practical use, even as pure intellectual exercise. It's not science talking here, it's an a priori commitment to a tenet of metaphysical faith for which proof is greatly desired but hard to come by. Science doesn't start with a carved-in-stone metaphysically-based conclusion and then go find evidence to support it (and interpreting that ambiguous evidence solely to the stone idol while raging against equally valid alternative interpretations as if they're heresy). At least, that's not what it's supposed to do.
Comment by Joy — July 26, 2008 @ 11:38 am
July 26th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Zachriel,
No. I don't consider Miller Urey to be supporting evidence for intelligent causation because it attempted to mimic a plausible prebiotic environment. By replicating a somewhat plausible scenario, Miller and Urey's results were logically attributable to nature.
But Unrau and Bartel's experiment was not an attempt to replicate a plausible environment. They used carefully timed and controlled laboratory procedures and equipment designed to isolate concentrations that would never plausibly occur naturally. While they demonstrated that RNA *can* synthesize nucleotides, they fell short of demonstrating that RNA *could have* synthesized nucleotides.
But we are also left with an example of a novel use for RNA, generated solely by the inherent properties of RNA coupled with an intelligently designed program for catalyzation, isolation, and amplification.
Score 1 point for abiogenesis, and 1 point for design. Unfortunately for abiogenesis though, the challenge now becomes one of demonstrating how a plausible pre-biotic environment encouraged the replication, catalyzation, isolation, and amplification of these exceedingly rare RNA's.
The design paradigm has already met this challenge.
Comment by chunkdz — July 26, 2008 @ 11:43 am
July 26th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
A mountain eroding is a process marked by gradual changes that leads towards a particular result. It has nothing to do with teleology.
Yes, that's correct. But that's not unusual when trying to fit diverse objects into rigid categorizations. But that's the whole point. There is a gray zone where sometimes it's hard to tell where life begins and where life ends.
Not all organisms have the same reproductive success. Reproduction can be defined as genetic population to account for the overall pattern (e.g. worker ants).
I provided several examples above. I don't remember your response.
Now, I know we have discussed that scientists studying abiogenesis don't subscribe to the magic *poof* hypothesis. Why do you persist with the straw man?
My very first comment on this thread was to very specific scientific results.
No, what scientists do is propose scientific hypotheses, deduce the entailed predictions, and *test* them.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
That's exactly what it was. Miller-Urey type experiments synthesize purines, but in very low concentrations. Unrau and Bartel showed that RNA can catalyse nucleotide synthesis increasing its overall concentration. That's the whole point, as I already said above. It is a test of a single step in the overall process, though a complete step-by-step is not yet available.
That doesn't make sense. Are you actually claiming that the chemical properties of identical molecules would have different properties in primordial seas?
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Since it looks like we are getting back on topic, let me point out again the 2008 paper I feel is very relevant to a discussion about nucleotides.
Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite
The scientific evidence is that life did not "poof" (neither divinely nor naturally), at least not on early earth.
The abstract of this paper didn't generate much interest, maybe the conclusion will…
I suggest this goes directly to Bradford's question in the opening post…
"So the question is: what basis do we have for believing that primordial earth had conditions favorable to generating nucleotides in configurations that would be favorable to cellular function?"
Let's do science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Zach:
Science once carried the banner for Eternity – a clockwork with no beginning or ending, as described by Newton. The Royal Society declared in one loud, unanimous voice that "Stones Do Not Fall From The Sky." Then their fancy boyz club building had some holes punched in it by a rain of stones from the sky.
Back in the 1950s Immanuel Velikovsky said God plays a mean game of billiards, and planet Earth was not immune from the game. Science declared him a heretic and burned him at the figurative stake. In the 1960s the CMB was quantified and suddenly the universe had a beginning… and an ending. All things change in space-time, evolution is universal, cosmic billiards is a real game.
We do not live long enough to observe the assumed gradualism that has historically played such a big role in our understanding of our universe and our planet. It is merely assumed, a left-over from everything that came before the middle of the last century. Now the obvious fitting together of continental land masses isn't just coincidence, but evidence they were all once connected (as any 2nd grader could – and did – tell). Comets and huge meteors have crashed into the planet, blowing debris that became our moon, causing great extinctions of life, and dramatically shaping the land and seas in sudden dramatic catastrophes of violent magma, earth, water, fire and wind.
We no longer automatically assume that what we observe today is how things have always been. No one has ever observed a mountain erode away via gradualism in their lifetime. Plenty of people have seen mountains suddenly shift, blow their tops, collapse in waves of mud, boulders and trees. Evidence in the rocks of sudden folding, upthrusting and deposition of biological flotsam in great heaps informs us these are violent forces.
I no longer live in the 1950s. Your fondness for antiquated anachronism isn't very impressive in 2008. Not even mainstream evolutionary theory claims gradualism anymore. We know better.
Your problems with the demarkation are purely human, just as are all the questions science (a human endeavor, like history) asks and answers. The whole rest of creation knows life and death in immediate terms. I would predict that cells – just like entire organisms – are alive until they die. It's a time-related phenomenon, dependent upon the true nature of time (continuous? psychological? discrete/granular?). I suspect that there's a discrete slice of time where a thing is not alive, followed by a discrete slice of time where it is. And visa versa. It may take months for the individual cells in a human body to die off, but we go ahead and call it when the system stops working, and promptly dispose of the left-behind cells by burying, exposing to carrion-eaters or burying. The zone isn't so gray as you'd like it to be, since we are the ones defining its boundaries.
You defined "Life" as a process teleologically geared towards reproduction. Humans often don't reproduce for one reason or another, yet all alive humans qualify as "Life." If you're going to switch to statistics in the middle of the conversation, you should at least warn us.
Because I don't believe there is such a thing as "semi-living matter" (or even "living matter"). Thus the question of origin boils down to poof-dom no matter how you slice it, since slicing involves time either way. You can consider me a vitalist of sorts, thus not amenable to concepts like long passé gradualism applied to life. The matter of a cow is still matter after the cow is certifiably dead – you can eat that matter and recycle it to supply the raw matter of your own body. The matter doesn't appear or disappear by magic, and it's the same whether it's left-over from a once-alive cow or incorporated into your still-alive body.
Abiogenesis is a lot like string theories. It's mostly armchair speculation at this point. May always be. I'll go ahead and make two specific, scientific predictions from my point of view (hypotheses and theory):
1. We will never manage to poof life into existence from inert matter by shaking up beakers of mud and hydrocarbons, or subjecting them to extreme conditions.
2. We will manage to create a reproducing life form from scratch in a test tube by intelligent design, using a pre-existing cell's machinery to run a wholly designed program (genome). Very soon, too.
Comment by Joy — July 26, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
It looks like the paper I referenced earlier has the hypothesis that…
"A continuous influx of meteoritic uracil and xanthine and possibly other nucleobases would have enriched the prebiotic organic inventory necessary for life to assemble on the early Earth."
So, if some enterprising scientists manage to make simple self replicating molecules out of nucleobases presumed available on early Earth (by a combination of terrestrial and extraterrestrial sources) where would that experiment’s results fall in your prediction's two categories?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Many years ago @ISCID I suggested that what distinguishes life forms from anything that is not life is life’s “loopiness.” Life is loopy!
A life form is a system that computes (actuates) the solution to the problem of its own continued existence. This is done by internalizing causal loops that effectively isolate the system from external conditions (usually described as linear, undirected causal chains) that would drive the system to extinction. These internalized “loops” are all derived inverse models of external physical causes (conditions) affecting survival.
The procedure is simple enough to understand: A physical condition is modeled and a response (appropriate to the “Prime Directive”) is constructed by simple inversion (or cancellation, inverting or reversing the cause-effect relation) or redirecting the cause or condition to produce the “desired” outcome.
This is what we call “intelligence” and “teleology.” All life forms are intelligent, teleological systems.
Comment by Rock — July 26, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
TP:
Hydrocarbons are cheap, everywhere except in our gas tanks. They exist in plentitude in the atmosphere of Venus, in various types of cosmic billiard balls, in star birth/death regions, and loose out there in interstellar space. Minerals are cheap too – all the non-transuranics are plentiful after several generations of fusion engines borning and dying. There were plenty here on Earth too, we didn't necessarily have to accumulate them from space debris. But space debris has long been incoming as well, even today. We NEVER see life spontaneously generating, in meteorite impact zones, in deep-sea ocean vents, in volcanoes, in coal mines, in diamond mines, in geyser pools, in boiling mud flats, in deep earth core samples, in oil wells, in mammoth cave systems or in glaciers. We don't see it in our swimming pools, bathtubs or garden plots either.
Simple self-replicating molecules are not life forms nor are they "alive." They are molecules of atomic elements bound together and interacting with the fields that surround and permeate them. Chemical reactions are cheap as well, they occur all the time inside and outside of life.
If you wish to go ahead and assert that you believe-in the existence of "living matter," then I hope you'll give me a definition that's better than what Zach offered.
Comment by Joy — July 26, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Rock:
Would that we could get the Darwinian Die-Hards to admit as much, Rock. They'll battle mightily against it all their lives. While science marches on…
Soon they'll be insular relics, like YECs.
Comment by Joy — July 26, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hi Rock,
You wrote…
I get the impression that it was more interesting to be an ID proponent "many years ago". It appeared to be a time when ID proponents were strongly embracing science because they were certain of the outcome. Where providing definitions and suggesting positive hypotheses like EAM was important because understanding was important
It was a time when people like Behe unabashedly said…
"It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues."
Behe originally presented this "…in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting of the C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University." link
But back to your very relevant comment on the definition of "life". I agree that it is unpredictably and chaos that distinguishes life from non-life.
That is one of the reason that I have come to strongly suspect that life is directly coupled to Quantum Mechanics and its quirky non-deterministic yet non-random nature.
Let’s do Science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Of course not. Scientists are quite aware of violent geological forces, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you really claiming that erosion is not a process? Or that mountains don't erode? You also evaded correcting your misstatement about teleology. But you will repeat it below.
You are confusing the thing itself with our demarcation. I also note that you have for the second time ignored my particular examples, though you found time to meander through the history of science.
Vitalism? I thought it was vitalism that was long passé. Do you have evidence of this élan vital?
No, I did not. I defined life quite conventionally, while also pointing out the problem of simplistic categorization.
Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism and reproduction.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Sorry, Joy. Those are not scientific predictions. They are predictions about human technical capabilities. I note you repeated your straw man *poof* hypothesis.
According to all available scientific evidence, so is life.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hi Joy,
Was this a rhetorical question or are you testing me for have consistency in my opinions?
I don't believe in the existence of matter, much less living matter.
Everything is interconnected quantum effects in the space-time wavefunction that is our observable universe. Everything, that is, with the possible exception of consciousness and life.
I think the presence of consciousness distinguishes life from non-life. No consciousness, no life.
Of course, this use of the term consciousness is more broad than most people use. Most people do not consider a single celled organism to be conscious.
However, if Orch OR is correct then all life taps the power and/or information and/or "consciousness" that is available via the interconnected quantum effects living things depend on.
Whether or not this reservoir of life energy is intelligent and/or purposeful is on the philosophical side of the NOMA divide making it more of a religious than a scientific concern in my opinion.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“The procedure is simple enough to understand: A physical condition is modeled and a response (appropriate to the “Prime Directive”) is constructed by simple inversion (or cancellation, inverting or reversing the cause-effect relation) or redirecting the cause or condition to produce the “desired” outcome.”
Btw, that’s also what we call “design.”
So what’s the basic problem for OOL? It assumes that the existence of life is due to purely physico-chemical conditions that are both necessary and sufficient. Obviously, finding those conditions has proven to be difficult. There could be a reason for the difficulty: A critical condition has been ignored: A designer of life.
?!
Comment by Rock — July 26, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Matter is a particular quantum effect, even if it is integrated into the Seamless Whole.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I said:
Simple self-replicating molecules are not life forms nor are they "alive." They are molecules of atomic elements bound together and interacting with the fields that surround and permeate them.
Zach:
That's not a definition of life, Zach. It's a description of the behavior of energy-as-matter interacting with fields in space-time. Physics, not biology. There's no such thing as "living matter." Or even "dead matter." Though there is inert matter and chemically dynamic matter. Rust, for instance. It never sleeps…
TP:
I recognize a continuum of manifest, additive expression of consciousness in all life forms. What that means is an open question on all scientific and metaphysical fronts. The magesteria at this point MUST overlap, or we'll never know to ask the right questions.
Now, this thread has grown beyond my technical capability of keeping up. I've said my piece. If there's further point to be made, try the open thread.
Comment by Joy — July 26, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I didn't say it was. You said self-replicating molecules were not alive, and then offered an explanation that was no explanation at all.
Tell it to Britannica. I already offered to drop the terminology, if you found it confusing.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
TP:
Nope. The source of biopolymers is an information mystery that is not solved by chemical reaction scenarios. It is molecular patterns that need explaining. That's why current OOL paradigms are unsatisfactory.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Rock:
I'm speechless.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Hi Bradford,
In the opening post you stated…
When I suggested the paper, Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite went to directly to your question, I answered the question you asked, not the one you implied. I provided a basis for scientific belief.
No one will ever be able to prove a negative to you Bradford. Most have given up trying.
Shall we review the basis of your scientific beliefs?
What are your scientific beliefs other than throwing stones at other OOL scientists?
What is your positive scientific proposal?
Would space aliens intentionally seeding the Earth be a scientific possibility by your reasoning? If not, why not?
Would an unintentional contamination of earth with extraterrestrial "living matter" be a scientific possibility? If not, why not?
Would an all-powerful deity directly creating and manipulating "living matter" during Earth's formation be a scientific possibility? If so, why?
My combined philosophical/scientific explanation is that the universe has a type of consciousness because of interconnected quantum effects. Furthermore, this conscious universe has a purpose. At a minimum, the apparent purpose of this telic universe is to exist and be consistent with itself. I suggest that life plays a role in fulfilling that purpose. Therefore, the conscious universe forced the existence of life through the manipulation of quantum effects.
Note, my hypothesis leaves open the possibility of detecting a universal manipulation. In other words, it is a hypothesis that is consistent with the possibility of detecting design scientifically.
Now let's take your obvious position that God is the designer. If God wanted me to know he/she/it exists then we wouldn't be having a disagreement. We both would know.
However, your God is more subtle than that. It is inconsistent to presume that a subtle God would be uncharacteristically crude in the creation of life on Earth. Yet you give every indication that you expect to catch God red-handed in the act.
Sorry, but if you actually succeed on finding a manipulative designer of life on Earth it is more likely that he is a Thrint named Kzanol locked in a stasis field of his observation post on our artificial moon (buried by moon dust over the billions of years).
Let's do science fiction!
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
TP-I get the impression that it was more interesting to be an ID proponent "many years ago".
I am not an “ID proponent,” btw. (I have been elected as “ID Cheerleader” though.) Never have been. Not anymore than I am a Darwinist. My approach to science is purely eclectic.]
It appeared to be a time when ID proponents were strongly embracing science because they were certain of the outcome.—TP
Prior to the mid-19th century. It’s always been in doubt because it hasn’t translated well into science. Since antiquity. Since the first guy said, “God did it.” And the next guy said, “No he didn’t.” The “next guy” went out to show God didn’t do it and the other guy just said, “God told me so.” “I know God did it, ‘cuz he told me he did it.”
That reduces Dembski to revival tent rants. against "Darwinism," which he also accepts to some extent in his writings!
As far as Behe’s comment goes, I’m not shocked. Never was. Nor was the principle of natural selection discovered in the nineteenth century. It has always been known and understood. So well understood that hardly anyone bothered to state it as a “theory.” That’s exactly why Darwin was accused of “plagiarism.” Because he called his own a theory that everyone already knew of!
TP-I agree that it is unpredictably and chaos that distinguishes life from non-life.
We don’t agree. Never said anything like that, TP.
Comment by Rock — July 26, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
TP, generating nucleotides or whatever other biochemical it is you have in mind is part of the problem for which favorable conditions are needed. Generating them in biologically functional sequences is also required or all you end up with is random flotsom.
How is evidence for the origin of life proof of a negative? The reason some might have given up trying is they know they cannot blow smoke by me on this.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
TP, I note that you mention different types of intelligent agents as a causal source for life but resist the generic description intelligent. Why?
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
It turns out that random RNA sequences can have catalytic and even autocatalytic properties.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Hi Rock,
You wrote…
It was not my intent to accuse you of being an ID proponent. I'm not even sure "ID Cheerleader" is an appropriate label. I have noticed your tendency to be pretty much a troublemaker for all sides. Apparently you have been doing this for a long time. BTW, I use the term "troublemaker" in the most positive sense of the term. I tend to think your kind of troublemaking is a good thing.
To my statement "I agree that it is unpredictably and chaos that distinguishes life from non-life."
You responded with…
I reread what you wrote and see that I misunderstood your use of the term "loopy". While you did talk about causal loops, I thought you were also suggesting chaotic unpredictability. Chaos, with its strange attractors, is also "loopy" in that it has loops and has unpredictable behavior. I thought you were playing on that double meaning. My bad.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
TP asked Bradford:
One of the things I started to discuss earlier with Zachriel was the probability of life else where in the universe. Here briefly is the exchange:
You asked Bradford:
Of course, logically speaking both of these are possibilities, but I think question #2 is closer to what the findings from the Murchison meteorite imply. I’m thinking that perhaps OoL scientists should begin thinking of the origin of life more on a cosmological scale rather than a local planetary scale. I think the evidence that we are beginning to uncover comes, not only from meteorites, but from the organic molecules that radio astronomers have discovered in interstellar space. (see the following abstract)
http://link.aip.org/link/?APPLAB/84/1410/1
This is empirical evidence that the chemical building blocks essential for life not only exist here on this planet but out there is the greater universe.
It seems entirely reasonable to me that scientists would be perfectly justified in making a working assumption that life may be common vs. rare throughout the universe.
Creationists (& ID’ists) often argue that origin of life cannot be due to natural causes because the origin of life is just too improbable. However, their probability calculations are fallacious because they presume that presently we know everything there is to know about life chemistry and the pre biotic conditions that led to the emergence of (1) first self replicating molecules> (2)proto cells> then (3)the first viable cells. Maybe the evidence from the Murchison meteorite and radio astronomy implies that rather than being improbable that life is in fact highly probable– not simply on this planet but the universe at large.
So what do you think?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 26, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
If all else fails ignore direct, honest questions by changing the subject with your own question based on an intentionally false premise.
Once again you let someone else come to your rescue. This time JOHN_A_DESIGNER. "Have you no shame" is getting tiresome. Now I wonder if you have any self asteem at all.
That being said, I will answer your question.
I do not resist the "generic description intelligent". I think a generic description of a being, program or process that has an ability to learn and/or adapt is a simple and understandable concept.
This circuit board layout program available at this web site is an intelligent designer.
I suggest that it isn't me who needs to worry about explaining what is meant by the term "Intelligent". Especially when it is capitalized to turn it into something more than it is (i.e. marketing tactic).
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Let's do science.:mrgreen: No point in digressing to your theological questions about the deity. Stay on focus.
When I shed that cheap tuxedo it's time for the cage. (Ref points to TP.) Are you ready? He knows Bradford is.
What a limited self-serving definition meant to confine outcomes to materialistic interpretations. Have you no shame?
So are the TTers.
Has that become the official strategy of the anti-ID movement?
Comment by Bradford — July 27, 2008 @ 12:47 am
July 27th, 2008 at 12:50 am
So when do RNA sequences evolve into biological systems as opposed to burn outs?
Comment by Bradford — July 27, 2008 @ 12:50 am
July 27th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Hi John,
Thank you for responding to my questions about possible extraterrestrial roles in OOL. You wrote…
I agree
I wouldn't get too hung up on what scientists "should" do. I agree that ia what they WILL do it because it looks like the evidence is forcing that conclusion. Thank you for the link.
I think the presence of life's raw material in space presents a problem for those trying to convince others that life on Earth is an unexplainably hard problem to solve.
Life in space makes life on Earth easy to explain, contamination.
But then we get to discuss how life in space came about.
Front Loading, a telic universe, EAM, Pansperia, directed Pansperia all come into play in this situation.
It will be interesting to what how faithfully those who call for following the evidence wherever it leads will stick by their words.
Obviously, I am biased towards thinking interconnected quantum effects are at play in life. It matters little whether this happen on Earth or in space.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 27, 2008 @ 2:04 am
July 27th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I asked three direct questions…
Would space aliens intentionally seeding the Earth be a scientific possibility by your reasoning? If not, why not?
Would an unintentional contamination of earth with extraterrestrial "living matter" be a scientific possibility? If not, why not?
Would an all-powerful deity directly creating and manipulating "living matter" during Earth's formation be a scientific possibility? If so, why?
Only the third question was asking about deities. Do you consider God as a possible Intelligent Designer or not?
You don't get to have it both ways. You can't demand us to seriously consider God as a possible Intelligent Designer while simultaneously berating us for including deities as a possible Intelligent Designers.
Or are you too busy shield bashing to notice the inherent paradox of your opposing complaints?
So you think you are ready to cross swords with me again? Do you want a rematch on Dembski's probability calculations of Specified Complexity?
A cage match doesn't mean you get to stay outside the cage and throw stones at the people with positive proposals like Mike Gene's Design Matrix method for inferring design or the Orch OR model for life and consciousness.
If you haven't noticed, I have been standing in the ring for a year defending my ID hypothesis from all challengers (The Third Choice was introduced July 2007)
Please join us anytime you think you are ready. We will try to be gentle on you (at least at the beginning).
To my definition of "intelligence" as the ability to learn and/or adapt, you wrote…
That doesn't make any sense.
Are deities or general unknown designers of life incapable of having an ability to learn and/or adapt? Or are you just concerned for one particular omniscient deity?
By the common dictionary definitions, fairies in the garden could be intelligent designers of life. My definition may make me anti-theistic, but it isn't relevant to being materialistic.
So who is acting on a "limited" definition of terms?
The person who entertains all sorts of intelligent designers from interconnected quantum effects, to aliens to deities, or the person who ignores anything and any question that doesn't lead to the predetermined conclusion that God is the one and only Intelligent Designer (cap I,D) of life made in his image and likeness?
So, Bradford, what is YOUR definition for intelligence going to be whenever you get around to joining those of us standing in the ring?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 27, 2008 @ 2:56 am
July 27th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Organic matter is much more strongly supported. Living matter may have been passed between planets in the Solar System due to various impacts, but is unlikely to have been transferred intact between stellar systems.
The Murchison meteorite is probably local, that is, part of the same nebula that formed the Solar System. Much of the Earth's surface water may come from comets, along with a variety of organic chemistry.
Especially when combined with knowledge of planet formation, the recent confirmation of extrasolar planets, knowledge of chemistry including the ubiquity of carbon and water, and the recent discovery of macromolecules in space. But working assumption means proposing new hypotheses and *testing* them, which is what scientists are doing. That's why we launch robot explorers to Mars, and optical telescopes into orbit.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2008 @ 7:31 am
July 27th, 2008 at 7:47 am
No one knows for sure at this time, but biologically functional sequences are not that rare. The objection you raised isn't valid.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2008 @ 7:47 am
July 27th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Thought Provoker, I thought you might have responded to this.
Matter is a particular quantum effect, even if it is integrated into the Seamless Whole. (If you don't think we can draw any distinctions in the material world, then you should remain silent like the Buddha. But we know that you can and have made such distinctions, such as pointing to nanobes and nucleotides.)
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2008 @ 7:50 am
July 27th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Zachriel:
I don't doubt that RNA with catalytic function can be found among nucleotide sequence space but for biological function to be plausible the functional sequences must interact within systems in a controlled and reproducible manner. That is DNA's roll. Storing the information needed by systems and the interacting parts of which they are composed. That also is the difference between DNA and a self-catalytic molecule whose function is self-centric rather than geared to store information required for systems function. Undirected functional sequences are like disassembled parts to a machine. Something can be done when the parts are purposefully assembled.
Comment by Bradford — July 27, 2008 @ 8:52 am
July 27th, 2008 at 9:10 am
What a limited self-serving definition meant to confine outcomes to materialistic interpretations. Have you no shame?
Depends on the concept of deity. Some fit the above to a T. Others, like the Judeo-Christian God is capable of all the above but much more. What is consistent about definition mavens is their intent to define intelligence in a way that fits a computer program perfectly but is ambiguous with respect to conscious intelligence. No suprise there but also not very brave. Definitional arguments are inherently weak as languages have built-in ambiguity and you will pick and chose what fits your liking.
If critics had integrity they would allow for proponents to define words relevant to the proposal. For me intelligence can be evidenced by a technological device or other non-conscious entity but also by conscious intelligent source. Evidence for for the two can be identical. A computer program can generate a linguistic response. So can a conscious intelligent source. If one sees a message, without context or knowledge of the source, he can correctly impute the possible cause to either. The capacity to distinguish between the two possibilities is limited by the nature of the evidence.
Comment by Bradford — July 27, 2008 @ 9:10 am
July 27th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Not just catalytic function, but autocatalytic function.
I'll take that as a correction, then, of your previous statement that generating "biologically functional sequences" is an unresolved problem for abiogenetic research.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2008 @ 9:56 am
July 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Zachriel:
The purpose of the machine parts analogy is illustrated by this response. Biological function is more than a biochemical part. It is a capacity to repeatedly bring about a specified outcome. It almost always entails multiple molecular parts. The enzyme aldolase catalyzes a reaction in which a six carbon sugar is cleaved so that it yields two three carbon molecules. One can cite that as the enzyme function and ignore the pathway of multiple reactions of which it is a part but only at one's analytical peril. The larger function involves generating energy and that in turn must be comprehended within the reproductive needs of an even larger complex of biological functions. The catalytic property of aldolase is absolutely meaningless in isolation. That in turn points out a major defect of origin of life theories. No directional arrow indicating a rationale for believing the isolated catalytic entities identified would catalyze reactions whose end result must be the integration of reproducible systems within a replicating whole. If all you ever get is scattered parts you're missing the point that the pathway to larger, more encompassing functions, is without a theoretical model.
Comment by Bradford — July 27, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
You have used language like this before, it seems that you only would accept a forced chain of direct causation. Why do you say "whose end result must be" rather than "whose end result could be"? Really I'm just curious, this seems to be a metaphysical denial that chance could play any role what-so-ever in the origin of life. Perhaps that's not your intent, but I am left with that impression.
Regardless, this matters little to the point you're trying to make. As far as I can tell your point is "a knowledge gap remains between catalyzed reactions and the first cell, therefore god did it."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 27, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You wrote…
Please accept my apologies from ignoring this and other comments.
It wasn't because I thought the comment was without merit. Quite the opposite, I thought you made your point well. I felt further discussion would have moved things to a level higher than warranted for the general thread.
For example, as your follow up comment demonstrates the natural next step would be a discussion quickly leading to the questing the existence of existence.
However, since you asked…
It is a well established observation that paired "particles" are constantly forming and recombining in the nothingness of space in strict adherence to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Following the evidence wherever it leads causes one to recognise that matter is a nothing more than a wrinkle in 4D space-time.
I communicate my understanding by suggesting matter doesn't exist in the same way that rainbows aren't tangle objects.
The intangible nature of rainbows doesn't keep us from talking as if they are solid objects. Saying something like "Look, children, at THE rainbow" implies a single, tangible thing that we can go to find a pot of gold.
All we can do is our best with the tools (words) at our disposal. Hopefully, by now, most of those at TT understand how I consider matter to be even less tangible than rainbows. "Particles" are matched pairs of nothings coming from nothing.
The shorthand is to suggest that neither matter nor particles actually exist.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 27, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Good, then there is no problem. My definition of "intelligence" hasn't limited you in any way.
Please note, you were the maven who questioned my definition in order to change the subject in this thread. link
If you remember you were avoiding answering three simple direct questions. Namely…
Would space aliens intentionally seeding the Earth be a scientific possibility by your reasoning? If not, why not?
Would an unintentional contamination of earth with extraterrestrial "living matter" be a scientific possibility? If not, why not?
Would an all-powerful deity directly creating and manipulating "living matter" during Earth's formation be a scientific possibility? If so, why?
Do you remember that in the opening post you where asking others "…what basis do we have for believing that…"?
I provided answers to your questions (whether you liked the answers or not). Wouldn't it be ethical to reciprocate?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 27, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
[...] on the lengthy Remarkable Nucleotides thread has become unwieldy, as well as not much about remarkable nucleotides anymore. This thread [...]
Pingback by Continuation… - Telic Thoughts — July 27, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
TP, space aliens and contamination would have to be considered possibilities. The same natural laws should apply throughout the universe ASAWK. God is also in the mix but if demonstrating miraculous power in a lab is an expectation then obviously that would remove this cause from scientific considerations.
Comment by Bradford — July 27, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Todd:
We cannnot rule out chance as a possibility for many things but that would not be a scientific theory would it. Besides we know enough about cells to have good reason to believe a chance outcome is extremely unlikely.
No, that is not my operating assumption when unknowns exist. In this case we have clear evidence of structures i.e. codons that function as physical symbols. We also have knowledge that similar symbolic useage is associated with advanced intelligence and no reason, grounded in chemistry, to expect natural processes to generate this type of feature.
Comment by Bradford — July 27, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
While chance is not an explanation for anything it is not something science ignores; many valid hypothesis have elements of chance. In fact anywhere you see probability used is a model of chance. Its not a black-and-white "must happen" verse "can't happen", its all about the likelihood of something happening.
We don't expect the theory of gravity to explain why the Earth weighs 5.9736×1024 KG, yet gravity explains the Earth's formation. But apparently you think that if Chemistry can't explain why there are three nucleotides in a codon instead of one or two or four or twenty or a variable number then that rules out Chemistry as having created the codon.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 27, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
We say that an enzyme has a biological function. Cleaving is a function. Enzymes can function outside the cell.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 12:31 am
We say that enzymes have biological functions because they function within biological entities. Since catalyzed reactions need not even involve biomolecules what is proven when a reaction takes place involving substances x and y outside a cell? If this and other catalytic reactions "team up" and produce a self-reproducing cellular activilty, like generating energy to sustain a biological system, then you have something more interesting.
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2008 @ 12:31 am
July 28th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Todd:
It's not the numbers. Why would a chemical reaction yield placeholders for amino acids as well as initiation and stop codons? How does an incremental precellular process produce this?
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2008 @ 12:35 am
July 28th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I really wish you wouldn't redefine well-established usage.
In other words, enzymes have biological function outside the cell.
The Chemical Nature of Enzymes is one of the great discoveries in biochemistry.
Comment by Zachriel — July 28, 2008 @ 8:24 am
July 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Zachriel, it's not a matter of redefining. If reactions occur, entailing actions like splicing in a prebiotic soup, my reaction is so what? Reactions occur all the time inside and outside cells. The theme of my comments has been consistent throughout. There is no direction to these reactions. Nothing to lead us to believe random splicing and other events would result in anything beyond this.
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2008 @ 8:39 am
July 28th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Because it contradicts the implication of your previous statement that biologically functional sequences are a problem for abiogenesis. Enzymatic fermentation is a biological function, and enzymatic fermentation can occur in isolation from the cell. If by your statement, and all your other heavy-laden verbiage, you just mean there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, then I remind you that that is not in dispute. What we do have is a lot of evidence pointing to a natural origin for life, and no evidence of artifice.
Comment by Zachriel — July 28, 2008 @ 9:28 am
July 28th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Bradford: If reactions occur entailing actions like splicing in a prebiotic soup my reaction is so what?
It is a problem that does not go away by pointing to catalytic properties as if the word catalytic was somehow a magical solution. Biology entails the study of living organisms and it is within that context that function is assessed. Sure sequences conferring cleaving functions can be found. My knife cleaves too. Unless you can connect some dots the extra-cellular cleaving sequences have as much relevance to generating life as my knife.
So what?
It's more than that. The theory is muddled.
That's your personal opinion. Extra-cellular catalytic reactions are not a lot of evidence. Neither are spark discharge experiments and the generation of random batches of biomolecules.
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2008 @ 10:07 am
July 28th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Speechless, Bradford? Over my poor spelling and punctuation? What exactly did I write that rendered you speechless?
Comment by Rock — July 28, 2008 @ 7:17 pm